Aemilius wrote: Conze remarks that there is very little actual meditation practice instructions, or none at all, in the Mahayana Sutras.

Conze must not have read many Mahayana sutras, then.

You know the basic instructions about sitting posture, breathing, gaze, etc...!? You don't find them in The Diamond sutra or in other Prajna Paramita sutras. I can't remember where in the Lankavatara Sutra Bhagavan talks about the abhisheka of the Tenth Bhumi? I do know that he talks in several times about "baptism by the buddhas"( in words of D.T. Suzuki), this must be the abhisheka you mentioned? Besides Avatamsaka Sutra there is in Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra "Consecration into independent knowledge" ( Robert Thurman's translation), which sounds like an abhisheka. Then there is "receiving prediction ( vyakarana) " that seems like an initiation, it is mentioned in Mahayana texts, like the White Lotus of the True Law.

Last edited by Aemilius on Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Aemilius wrote: Conze remarks that there is very little actual meditation practice instructions, or none at all, in the Mahayana Sutras.

Conze must not have read many Mahayana sutras, then.

You know the basic instructions about sitting posture, breathing, gaze, etc...!? You don't find them in The Diamond sutra or in other Prajna Paramita sutras.

But they exist in many other sutras.

I can't remember where in the Lankavatara Sutra Bhagavan talks about the abhisheka of the Tenth Bhumi? I do know that he talks in several times about "baptism by the buddhas"( in words of T.D. Suzuki), this must be the abhisheka you mentioned?

I can't tell you exact location -- but it is something cited frequently in Tibetan sources to show that abhisheka is indispensable for full awakening.

Besides Avatamsaka Sutra there is in Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra "Consecration into independent knowledge" ( Robert Thurman's translation), which sounds like an abhisheka. Then there is "receiving prediction ( vyakarana) " that seems like an initiation, it is mentioned in Mahayana texts, like the White Lotus of the True Law.

In Vajrayana, abhisheka is a method of attaining full awakening from Yoga Tantra on up. If you do not attain full awakening, then you have methods of sadhana, creation stage, completion stage and so on.

These methods are all completely absent from sutrayāna teachings. Sutrayāna is vehicle of the cause; Vajrayāna is the vehicle of the result.

Although in the Kumarajiva version it only says that the Buddha sat down, in Bodhiruci's translation it goes: sat peacefully in lotus-position straightening his body and posture (跏趺安坐，端身而住), or in Red Pine's translation "crossing his legs and adjusting his body". Although the Diamond Sutra is not an instruction on meditation, it does refer to proper sitting posture, and even more.

The Lankavatara Sutra 2.24, DT Suzuki translation:

"When a definite acquisition is obtained regarding the aspect of the stages [of Bodhisattvahood], the Bodhisattva will experience joy, and, gradually and successively going up the scale, will reach the ninth stage where his insight is perfected, and [finally the tenth stage known as] Great Dharmamegha. Establishing himself here, (70) he will be seated in the great jewel palace known as "Great Lotus Throne" which is in the shape of a lotus and is adorned with various sorts of jewels and pearls; he will then acquire and complete a world of Maya-nature; surrounded by Bodhisattvas of the same character and anointed like the son of the Cakravarti by the hands of the Buddhas coming from all the Buddha-lands, he will go beyond the last stage of Bodhisattvahood, attain the noble truth of self-realisation, and become a Tathagata endowed with the perfect freedom of the Dharmakaya, because of his insight into the egolessness of things."

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

Aemilius wrote: You know the basic instructions about sitting posture, breathing, gaze, etc...!? You don't find them in The Diamond sutra or in other Prajna Paramita sutras.

But they exist in many other sutras.

I can't remember where in the Lankavatara Sutra Bhagavan talks about the abhisheka of the Tenth Bhumi? I do know that he talks in several times about "baptism by the buddhas"( in words of T.D. Suzuki), this must be the abhisheka you mentioned?

I can't tell you exact location -- but it is something cited frequently in Tibetan sources to show that abhisheka is indispensable for full awakening.

Besides Avatamsaka Sutra there is in Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra "Consecration into independent knowledge" ( Robert Thurman's translation), which sounds like an abhisheka. Then there is "receiving prediction ( vyakarana) " that seems like an initiation, it is mentioned in Mahayana texts, like the White Lotus of the True Law.

In Vajrayana, abhisheka is a method of attaining full awakening from Yoga Tantra on up. If you do not attain full awakening, then you have methods of sadhana, creation stage, completion stage and so on.

These methods are all completely absent from sutrayāna teachings. Sutrayāna is vehicle of the cause; Vajrayāna is the vehicle of the result.

N

The main point is that the method of meditation is not put into the mahayana sutras in any extensive, or detailed manner. It is neither there in the Lotus sutra, but the Lotus sutra schools have an immense amount of oral instructions. Same is true with regard of Amitabha sutras, and Avatamsaka sutra school which also has important oral teachings connected to the Sutra.The method existed as oral instructions within the Mahayana movement for more than one thousand of years.Even now the method has never been wholly put into a bookform. Consequentally true Mahayana has not existed without a method or upaya.You can't say that method is absent in Mahayana when it is an oral tradition.It is ridiculous to say that the method is absent in the Mahayana, which is what you seem to imply, am I right ?

Another point I was making is that tantra did not exist as a separate school, but rather as an inner aspect of the Mahayana. This is said by Guru Rimpoche,i.e. that tantra is an inner aspect of the Mahayana, and sutra is its outer aspect, ( in one of the books translated by Eric Pema Kunzang). I also pointed out that only recently has tantra become something that exists as an outer public school and as public teaching.

If someone attains full awakening within the Mahayana then he has received the Abhisheka, right? Are you happy with that ?

Or do you want to grasp at some fundamentalist tantrist view in which "no one outside my guru's lineage has ever attained enlightenment because they have not received His abhisheka"? -or something similar? If I have got it right this is what bigoted tibetans want to say, or they say it in a roundabout way, and they want You to say that!

You also shouldn't forget that meditation manuals written not by Vajrayana people (Visuddhimagga, Mohezhiguan, etc.) have nothing to do with tantra and they have been available even before the advent of tantra.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

Aemilius wrote: The main point is that the method of meditation is not put into the mahayana sutras in any extensive, or detailed manner. It is neither there in the Lotus sutra, but the Lotus sutra schools have an immense amount of oral instructions.

Perhaps, but none of them are tantric.

Same is true with regard of Amitabha sutras, and Avatamsaka sutra school which also has important oral teachings connected to the Sutra.

Perhaps, but still none of them are tantric.

The method existed as oral instructions within the Mahayana movement for more than one thousand of years.Even now the method has never been wholly put into a bookform. Consequentally true Mahayana has not existed without a method or upaya.You can't say that method is absent in Mahayana when it is an oral tradition.It is ridiculous to say that the method is absent in the Mahayana, which is what you seem to imply, am I right ?

Mahāyana has methods, but they are not tantric, and will not lead to full awakening in a single lifetime.

Another point I was making is that tantra did not exist as a separate school, but rather as an inner aspect of the Mahayana. This is said by Guru Rimpoche,i.e. that tantra is an inner aspect of the Mahayana, and sutra is its outer aspect, ( in one of the books translated by Eric Pema Kunzang). I also pointed out that only recently has tantra become something that exists as an outer public school and as public teaching.

Mantrayāna is sometimes referred to as uncommon Mahāyāna.

If someone attains full awakening within the Mahayana then he has received the Abhisheka, right? Are you happy with that ?

After three incalculable eons.

Or do you want to grasp at some fundamentalist tantrist view in which "no one outside my guru's lineage has ever attained enlightenment because they have not received His abhisheka"? -or something similar?

Mahāyanists certainly attain awakening -- after three incalculable aeons. If they enter into the method of secret mantra, then they can shorten that duration to one, three, seven or at most sixteen lifetimes.

If I have got it right this is what bigoted tibetans want to say, or they say it in a roundabout way, and they want You to say that!

Actually, it is what "bigoted" Indian acaryas claimed for secret mantra teachings in distinction to common Mahāyāna teachings like the Lanka, Avatamska, etc. Tibetans, Chinese, and Japanese Buddhists just accepted their word for it. As so I -- but not without good reason.

A couple of sutras that give instructions in meditation (they're translated, you can check it for yourself):

[You also shouldn't forget that meditation manuals written not by Vajrayana people (Visuddhimagga, Mohezhiguan, etc.) have nothing to do with tantra and they have been available even before the advent of tantra.

I know many of these sutras, like the Satipatthana sutta, and others,... which however is not included in the Mahayana, and I thought about the Amitayur Dhyana that is called Meditation Sutra in the Pureland school, but I left it outside of discussion. For example the Satipatthana sutta describes several of its methods very briefly, almost just mentioning the name of a meditation topic, like the meditation on the production and dissolution processes of the body. The point is that if you attain dhyana, samadhi and samapatti you attain whole universes of knowledge.This knowledge has existed much before what you call "the advent of tantra", it has existed from the beginning, This is the inner experience area, it is also the area of tantra. It seems that there developed some schools that consciously deny the inner experience aspect of Dharma, in name only they accept that there is "enlightenment", their "enlightenment" is without knowledge and without experience, only then is it "true" enlightenment. In the history of Dharma there is inner experience from the very beginning, therefore there is also tantra, or the likeness of tantra, from the very beginning. But then there are people with authority and power who want to decide what "true " enlightenment is, and hence they start their own schools whose main purpose is to wipe out some irritating persons and their influence who actually attained dhyana, samadhi and samapatti. I think that for example Buddhaghosha had a wealth of inner the Dharma, I would even say that innerly he was a tantric, this is because of the necessary dynamics of the dhyana process.

Aemilius wrote: The main point is that the method of meditation is not put into the mahayana sutras in any extensive, or detailed manner. It is neither there in the Lotus sutra, but the Lotus sutra schools have an immense amount of oral instructions.

Perhaps, but none of them are tantric.

Same is true with regard of Amitabha sutras, and Avatamsaka sutra school which also has important oral teachings connected to the Sutra.

Perhaps, but still none of them are tantric.

The method existed as oral instructions within the Mahayana movement for more than one thousand of years.Even now the method has never been wholly put into a bookform. Consequentally true Mahayana has not existed without a method or upaya.You can't say that method is absent in Mahayana when it is an oral tradition.It is ridiculous to say that the method is absent in the Mahayana, which is what you seem to imply, am I right ?

Mahāyana has methods, but they are not tantric, and will not lead to full awakening in a single lifetime.

Another point I was making is that tantra did not exist as a separate school, but rather as an inner aspect of the Mahayana. This is said by Guru Rimpoche,i.e. that tantra is an inner aspect of the Mahayana, and sutra is its outer aspect, ( in one of the books translated by Eric Pema Kunzang). I also pointed out that only recently has tantra become something that exists as an outer public school and as public teaching.

Mantrayāna is sometimes referred to as uncommon Mahāyāna.

If someone attains full awakening within the Mahayana then he has received the Abhisheka, right? Are you happy with that ?

After three incalculable eons.

Or do you want to grasp at some fundamentalist tantrist view in which "no one outside my guru's lineage has ever attained enlightenment because they have not received His abhisheka"? -or something similar?

Mahāyanists certainly attain awakening -- after three incalculable aeons. If they enter into the method of secret mantra, then they can shorten that duration to one, three, seven or at most sixteen lifetimes.

If I have got it right this is what bigoted tibetans want to say, or they say it in a roundabout way, and they want You to say that!

Actually, it is what "bigoted" Indian acaryas claimed for secret mantra teachings in distinction to common Mahāyāna teachings like the Lanka, Avatamska, etc. Tibetans, Chinese, and Japanese Buddhists just accepted their word for it. As so I -- but not without good reason.

I'm quite happy if you attain full enlightenment in this lifetime. Or even in seven lifetimes is very good.

Aemilius wrote: The point is that if you attain dhyana, samadhi and samapatti you attain whole universes of knowledge.

No. Without vipaśyāna, dhyana, samadhi and samapatti just led to rebirth in deva realms.

This knowledge has existed much before what you call "the advent of tantra", it has existed from the beginning, This is the inner experience area, it is also the area of tantra. It seems that there developed some schools that consciously deny the inner experience aspect of Dharma, in name only they accept that there is "enlightenment", their "enlightenment" is without knowledge and without experience, only then is it "true" enlightenment. In the history of Dharma there is inner experience from the very beginning, therefore there is also tantra, or the likeness of tantra, from the very beginning. But then there are people with authority and power who want to decide what "true " enlightenment is, and hence they start their own schools whose main purpose is to wipe out some irritating persons and their influence who actually attained dhyana, samadhi and samapatti. I think that for example Buddhaghosha had a wealth of inner the Dharma, I would even say that innerly he was a tantric, this is because of the necessary dynamics of the dhyana process.

Is this so difficult to understand?

I understand your point of view, though I do not agree with it. I don't agree with your conspiracy theory either.

You seem think that Vajrayāna is all about dhyāna, samapatti and samadhi. It isn't.

Vajrayāna practice is a method of reversing dependent origination. Of course, in that process we need to use samadhi and samapatti. But not in the way it is used in sutrayāna methodology.

There is a school in Tibetan Buddhism called the Kagyu school. They teach a system called mahāmudra. They assert that mahāmudra is also found in the Mahāyāna sūtras (but not, of course in Hīnayāna sūtras. And they teach, in their mahāmudra, a system called sūtra mahāmudra which is the basis of the famed four yogas of mahāmudra of Gampopa. They emphasize the practice of dhyana in their system of mahāmudra

They also clearly recognize a mahāmudra that comes from Vajrayāna practice. They further recognize a type of mahāmudra that comes from sudden insight based on a kind of introduction by a master, called essence mahāmudra.

They clearly differentiate sūtra mahāmudra and "tantric" mahāmudra by the methods that are used. The methods used in tantric mahāmudra are things like creation stage (visualizing oneself as a deity), mantra recitation, working with prāṇayāma (not mindfulness of breathing), "erotic" yogas, yogas connected with sleep, waking, etc.

The methods used in sutra mahāmudra are solely śamatha and vipaśyāna combined with the four yogas -- which are really stages in the deepening of śamatha and vipaśyāna.

Essence mahāmudra has no methods.

Vajrayāna is different than sūtra teachings because the methods of deity yoga, prāṇayāma, etc., are never taught in sūtra. No cakras, no ṇāḍīs, etc. None of that newage hippy Vajrayāna stuff is found in the sūtras, nor explained by sūtra masters -- not in India, not in China, not in Japan.

We Vajrayānists assert that all of our hippy methods, deity yoga, and so on, cause our path to be faster than the pure Mahāyāna sūtra route. These criteria did not evolve in Tibet, they evolved in India. Of course, there is some internal debate as I mentioned above. The Kagyu school in many respects is close to Chan school and even uses some Chan scriptures as a basis for their arguments.

You can accept or reject Vajrayāna claims -- but at least you should clearly understand what they are -- a clarity that thus far has been absent in your presentation.

Vajrayāna is different than sūtra teachings because the methods of deity yoga, prāṇayāma, etc., are never taught in sūtra. No cakras, no ṇāḍīs, etc. None of that newage hippy Vajrayāna stuff is found in the sūtras, nor explained by sūtra masters -- not in India, not in China, not in Japan.

We Vajrayānists assert that all of our hippy methods, deity yoga, and so on, cause our path to be faster than the pure Mahāyāna sūtra route. These criteria did not evolve in Tibet, they evolved in India.

Now this is a clear cut explanation of the difference.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

This Kagyupa would just like to point out that, in practice, I don't think there is anyone who practices only the so-called "Sutra Mahamudra." The way it is taught, these days, incorporates elements of Tantra Mahamudra and even, in some cases, aspects of "essence" mahamudra.

And as for "Essence Mahamudra," there is, in fact, a "Practice"--if you want to call it that. It is the path on which one receives a special kind of empowerment, that's the "method."

Most, if not all, Kagyupas engage in some form of deity yoga, and even pranayama, as well as vipassana and samatha, and we apply these methods in combination with the "View" of Mahamudra. I have never met a Kagyu Lama who does not embrace Vajrayana methods. Then again, I haven't met every Kagyu Lama.

May any merit generated by on-line discussionBe dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

conebeckham wrote:This Kagyupa would just like to point out that, in practice, I don't think there is anyone who practices only the so-called "Sutra Mahamudra." The way it is taught, these days, incorporates elements of Tantra Mahamudra and even, in some cases, aspects of "essence" mahamudra.

And as for "Essence Mahamudra," there is, in fact, a "Practice"--if you want to call it that. It is the path on which one receives a special kind of empowerment, that's the "method."

Most, if not all, Kagyupas engage in some form of deity yoga, and even pranayama, as well as vipassana and samatha, and we apply these methods in combination with the "View" of Mahamudra. I have never met a Kagyu Lama who does not embrace Vajrayana methods. Then again, I haven't met every Kagyu Lama.

Of course, but they are explained separately. For example, the four yogas of mahāmudra along with the detailed introduction of the nature of the mind, for example, like in Bokar Rinpoche pithy condensation, are explained seperately from the six yogas of Naropa, etc.

Not entirely, Namdrol.For example, I have attended when Yongay Mingyur Rinpoche taught elements from all three "categories" in one session.....though I grant you, the complete Tantra Mahamudra teachings, as well as the Essence Mahamudra Transmission, are much more restrictive.

May any merit generated by on-line discussionBe dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

Yongay Mingyur Rinpoche discussed all three "methods," or "paths," and taught some limited pranayama techniques, which I don't believe are strictly a part of the Sutra Mahamudra transmission. I could be wrong...

In general, the Sutra Mahamudra tradition is about resting in samatha with luminosity/clarity as the object. Mantra Mahamudra is about resting in samatha with conjoined bliss/emptiness as object, and this "object" is related to Vajrayana empowerment and practice, and in particular the Completion Stage.

Essence Mahamudra is conferred on the fortunate and rare disciple who is ripened and liberated merely by the empowerment of the "Vajra Essence."

May any merit generated by on-line discussionBe dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

Kagyu Mahamudra is nothing like Chan. Usually its Dzogchen that gets compared with Chan, but actually sense all Tibetan schools assert that one must follow the gradual path of the 5 paths and the 10 bhumis to achieve enlightenment they are in accordance with the traditions of the Dharma preserved by the Indian panditas at the likes of Nalanda and Vikramalshila monasteries and not like the Buddhism that went to China and was influenced by Daoism and Confucianism.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html"How amazing, sir. How astounding, that there is neither extolling of one's own Dhamma nor deprecation of another's, but just the teaching of the Dhamma in its proper sphere, speaking to the point without mentioning oneself."